"Austrian infantry in two ranks...?" Topic

Can anyone with special knowledge of the Austrian regulations tell us if there was a point at which two ranks may have been adopted in the Austrian infantry – wasn`t that point at 12 files per company in the French regulations – did the Austrians have something similar to this?
TIA… Mike.

Mike:

As far as I know, it was always an option for commanders, beginning with the 1769 regulations, but I don't know of any that specifically prescribed them. The Austrians were fighting in three ranks in 1848.

Bill H.

This did this from the French Revolutionary Wars onwards, in case they had to create reserves.

Also when the third rank was detached for skirmishing the units formed two ranks as well.

However the general formation should have been three ranks.

I started reading Goetz's book on Austerlitz this past weekend – wherein he he makes the point that the Austrian 1805 reorganization introduced the four-company battalion, which employed a two-rank formation. The purpose of adopting two-ranks, was to ensure that the battalion frontage was the same as the earlier six-company three-rank line.
Has anyone come across this before?
And if this is the case – where did the Austrian units draw their skirmish troops from? It seems from other threads the Austrians drew their skirmishers from the third-rank, but if there was no third rank, that wouldn't make sense.

I have recently been looking at two engagements involving the Austrians in 1805; the first was the fight at Austerlitz on Stare Vinorhady where comparing the frontages and strengths of the units involved it seemed to me that the Austrians must have been formed in two ranks.

The other battle is Mariazell at which I think it was just the reverse, and battalions formed in 3 ranks.
As part of the reforms of 1805, I doubt that the adoption of two ranks would have been that problematic, but it is always possible that armies may revert to previous practices that are in the regulations.

These are two contrasting examples where space possibly might have dictated the formation of battle lines… three deep at Mariazell where the space was limited 2 deep at Austerlitz with the need to cover more front?

Mike.

Mike,
I had noticed that Goetz referenced Rothenberg's, Napoleon's Great Adversary, when talking about Mack's reforms. So I checked Rothenberg, and it's very clear from his text that the infantry fought in three ranks. He states that the third rank could be used either to extend the front [that is, maintain the unit frontage as combat losses increased], or act as skirmishers]. The reference to forming two ranks in lieu of three, is in an earlier paragraph, in the same section, and relates to cavalry.
So my conclusion would be that the infantry did form in three-ranks, and not in two-ranks, as Goetz suggests.

Ligniere,

Please take a look pages 194-204 of Robert Goetz book and see how many battalions were opposed to each other on the Stare Vinohrady…
check the battalion strengths he gives for Salzburg IR23 against all those for the French battalions engaged with them.
IR23 had 2,800 men in six battalions – 466 men each on average.
The French battalions were stronger on average between 600 and 900 per battalion.
The maps showing this are on pages 195 and 203.

It was in all probablity, much easier for the Austrian lines to form in two ranks at the outset, than it was to have the third rank be detached in order to extend each battalion`s front. Either way they would have presented a line of 2 ranks.

Mike.

Mike,
The way I see the three-rank formation devolving into a two-rank formation, is that as casualties occurred in the first and second rank, the gaps would have been filled by men from the third. This would have maintained the width of the unit, if not the depth, and helped to maintain the volume of fire.

I would have to agree with you, with a battalion at an average strength of 460 odd men, in order to maintain the 'preferred' frontage [and to maximize their potential fire power], they've already reached the point at which the unit would have to be in two-ranks.

As the units would tend to rely on the third rank for strength and replacements, the poor old Austrians on the Stare Vinohrady were going to get shot to pieces very quickly in their exposed position. And clearly, with no third-rank, there would be little or no opportunity to deploy men ahead as skirmishers to deflect the French voltigeurs prior to the close action fire fight. If it even needed to come to that.

I'll definitely take a closer look at the maps, as you mention – only on page 50 at present.

Ligniere,

Would you like me to send you the notes of game tests I did of this… and my workings out?

I think that I posted all of these on my yahoogroup, which you might like to see and are welcome to join… its at:

link

you might just mail me at:

em_see@btinternet.com

Regards,

Mike.

MIke,
Very interested to see you calculations – you can send the info to
ligniere@att.net
Thanks